Yeah, right. Creating a NeoCon parallel universe

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Subject: Fwd: Fw: ISRAELI'S ASSESMENT OF OUR SECURITY

Juval Aviv was the Israeli Agent upon whom the movie ' Munich ' was based. He was Golda Meir's bodyguard -- she appointed him to track down and bring to justice the Palestinian terrorists who took the Israeli athletes hostage and killed them during the Munich Olympic Games.

In a lecture in New York City a few weeks ago, he shared information that EVERY American needs to know -- but that our government has not yet shared with us.

He predicted the London subway bombing on the Bill O'Reilly show on Fox News stating publicly that it would happen within a week. At the time, O'Reilly laughed and mocked him saying that in a week he wanted him back on the show. But, unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack had occurred.

Juval Aviv gave intelligence (via what he had gathered in Israel and the Middle East ) to the Bush Administration about 9/11 a month before it occurred. His report specifically said they would use planes as bombs and target high profile buildings and monuments. Congress has since hired him as a security consultant.

Now for his future predictions. He predicts the next terrorist attack on the U.S. will occur within the next few months.

Forget hijacking airplanes, because he says terrorists will NEVER try and hijack a plane again as they know the people onboard will never go down quietly again. Aviv believes our airport security is a joke -- that we have been reactionary rather than proactive in developing strategies that are truly effective.

For example:

1) Our airport technology is outdated. We look for metal, and the new explosives are made of plastic.

2) He talked about how some idjit tried to light his shoe on fire. Because of that, now everyone has to take off their shoes. A group of idiots tried to bring aboard liquid explosives. Now we can't bring liquids on board. He says he's waiting for some suicidal maniac to pour liquid explosive on his underwear; at which point, security wil l have us all traveling naked! Every strategy we have is 'reactionary.'

3) We only focus on security when people are heading to the gates.

Aviv says that if a terrorist attack targets airports in the future, they will target busy times on the front end of the airport when/where people are checking in. It would be easy for someone to take two suitcases of explosives, walk up to a busy check-in line, ask a person next to them to watch their bags for a minute while they run to the restroom or get a drink, and then detonate the bags BEFORE security even gets involved. In Israel , security checks bags BEFORE people can even ENTER the airport.

Aviv says the next terrorist attack here in America is imminent and will involve suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers in places where large groups of people congregate. (i. e., Disneyland, Las Vegas casinos, big cities (New York, San Francisco, Chicago, etc.) and that it will also include shopping malls, subways i n rush hour, train stations, etc., as well as rural America this time (Wyoming, Montana, etc.).

The attack will be characterized by simultaneous detonations around the country (terrorists like big impact), involving at least 5-8 cities, including rural areas.

Aviv says terrorists won't need to use suicide bombers in many of the larger cities, because at places like the MGM Grand in Las Vegas , they can simply valet park a car loaded with explosives and walk away.

Aviv says all of the above is well known in intelligence circles, but that our U. S. government does not want to 'alarm American citizens' with the facts.

The world is quickly going to become 'a different place', and issues like 'global warming' and political correctness will become totally irrelevant.

On an encouraging note, he says that Americans don't have to be concerned about being nuked. Aviv says the terrorists who want to destroy America will not use sophisticated weapons. They like to use suicide as a front-line approach. It's cheap, it's easy, it's effective; and they have an infinite abundance of young militants more than willing to 'meet their destiny'.

He also says the next level of terrorists, over which America should be most concerned, will not be coming from abroad. But will be, instead, 'homegrown' -- having attended and been educated in our own schools and universities right here in the U. S. He says to look for 'students' who frequently travel back and forth to the Middle East . These young terrorists will be most dangerous because they will know our language and will fully understand the habits of Americans; but that we Americans won't know/understand a thing about them.

Aviv says that, as a people, Americans are unaware and uneducated about the terroristic threats we w ill, inevitably, face. America still has only have a handful of Arabic and Farsi speaking people in our intelligence networks, and Aviv says it is critical that we change that fact SOON.

So, what can America do to protect itself?

From an intelligence perspective, Aviv says the U.S. needs to stop relying on satellites and technology for intelligence. We need to, instead, follow Israel 's, Ireland 's and England 's hands-on examples of human intelligence, both from an infiltration perspective as well as to trust 'aware' citizens to help. We need to engage and educate ourselves as citizens; however, our U. S. government continues to treat us, its citizens, 'like babies'. Our government thinks we 'can't handle the truth' and are concerned that we'll panic if we understand the realities of terrorism. Aviv says this is a deadly mistake.& nbsp;

Aviv recently created/executed a security test for our Congress, by placing an empty briefcase in five well-traveled spots in five major cities. The results? Not one person called 911 or sought a policeman to check it out. In fact, in Chicago , someone tried to steal the briefcase!

In comparison, Aviv says that citizens of Israel are so well 'trained' that an unattended bag or package would be reported in seconds by citizen(s) who know to publicly shout, 'Unattended Bag!' The area would be quickly & calmly cleared by the citizens themselves. But, unfortunately, America hasn't been yet 'hurt enough' by terrorism for their government to fully understand the need to educate its citizens or for the government to understand that it's their citizens who are, inevitably, the best first-line of defense against terrorism.

Aviv also was concerned about the high number of children here in America who were in preschool and kindergarten after 9/11, who were 'lost' without parents being able to pick them up, and about ours schools that had no plan in place to best care for the students until parents could get there. (In New York City , this was days, in some cases!)

He stresses the importance of having a plan, that's agreed upon within your family, to respond to in the event of a terroristic emergency. He urges parents to contact their children's schools and demand that the schools, too, develop plans of actions, as they do in Israel .

Does your family know what to do if you can't contact one another by phone? Where would you gather in an emergency? He says we should all have a plan that is easy enough for even our youngest children to remember and follow.
  & nbsp;
Aviv says that the U. S. government has in force a plan that, in the event of another terrorist attack, will immediately cut-off EVERYONE's ability to use cell phones, blackberries, etc., as this is the preferred communication source used by terrorists and is often the WA y that their bombs are detonated.

How will you communicate with your loved ones in the event you cannot speak? You need to have a plan.

Must be hard to have conversation. Not make sense you. Confused I. You so mean. Why you so mean?

GET OFF THE LIBERAL BOARD, FOR PETE SAKE, GET OFF THE LIBERAL BOARD, WE DONT WANT YOU HERE.

Bye, bye, neocon..you have been told quite a few times to stay off the liberal board..IMHO save yourself from grief and angst..dont read this board, dont post on this board, dont come on this board..

I always thought neocon mean the **new and improved version** the *reenergized*, the uber-conservative.

We are the ones who think what is causing so much of the problem is the attitude of the American left.

The true conservative is not faint of heart, and we've still got a lot of fight left in us...for the the actual war and for the fight against the extreme leftists who have now unashamedly positioned themselves as a roadblock in the effort.

The above statements you made are what I was referring to about the maligning the left. These hawkiest of the hawks are backpeddaling which is a huge shock to me, but you think the problem is **the American left** who have **positioned themselves as a roadblock.**

I, on the other hand, think these guys mentioned in the article said they felt the administration was incompetent. Perleman said he still thought his own philosophy about spreading democracy and using a dominant military was the right way to go; he has just discovered that this administration can't do it. I believe he said, verbatim, it's a good idea but we have to throw it in the Can't Do drawer because it is over, at least for a generation. None of these guys mentioned the left as being part of the problem; they laid it squarely on the shoulders of this administration.

Furthermore, no one is asking you conservatives to leave the board because of **my tender feelings**..I only know these people through their posts, why would they ask you to leave because of me..What I post and my beliefs, I DEFEND THEM AND DO NOT ASK ANYONE ELSE TO **GANG UP WITH ME** against conservatives which is not like your ilk, who always gang up with your conservative cohorts on the liberal board against the liberals. Whatever reason anyone on the liberal board asks you to leave is NOT BECAUSE OF GT..Maybe in your psyche it is easier to take, thinking..well, they only ask us to leave because of **GT's tender feelings**..Well, that is not the reason..I have never asked anyone on the liberal board to back me up or to ask you conservatives to leave..It is their opinions, beliefs and feelings and I have mine..When they ask you to leave they do so for their own reasons, NOT MINE.

And I wasn't the one who wrote the things you are responding to, but here is a really good definition of Neocon and perhaps you can see why AG and I and others have stridently objected to being labeled Neocon in the past. Though I have some Neocon friends and I admire most of their beliefs, I am no Neocon. Neither, for that matter, is President Bush, who has been labeled a neocon ad nauseum on these boards.

It would appear that you are unfamiliar with the history of the neo-conservative movement, a history which explains why some folks associate it with Jews and why the use of �neo-con� as a pejorative seems to some to smell of anti-Semitism.

The original �neo-conservatives� were a group of left-of-center intellectuals who became disillusioned with their liberal politics and became conservatives � mostly, but not exclusively, on foreign policy and national security issues. Many, but not all, of these intellectuals were Jewish, and the �center of gravity� of the nascent neo-conservative movement was Commentary magazine and its editors and writers. Prominent among the early neo-conservatives were Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz (who are Jewish) and Jeanne Kirkpatrick (who is (I think) a Gentile). Commentary magazine played the role in the neo-conservative movement that was played by National Review in the broader conservative intellectual movement of the 1960s and 1970s.

The contemporary conservative journalists Bill Kristol and John Podhoretz are the sons of the early neo-conservatives Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz.

The defining characteristic of neo-conservatism, properly so called, is a belief in a robustly activist foreign policy by people who were formerly left-of-center. The movement is associated with Jewish-ness because many of its early leading lights happened to be Jews; but Jewish-ness is accidental to the movement, not characteristic of it. To use �neo-con� as a sort of vaguely anti-Semitic slur is not only dishonorable, but a misuse of language. That doesn�t mean that it doesn�t happen, though.

Boy, you are a slow learner. You complain to another poster that the NY Times is liberal slanted yet you cut and paste from you right-wing neocon rags (I know you don't like the neocon label but too bad). You make it appear this is your original thinking. You post this stuff like it's your original writing and thinking but it's all cut and paste or right-wing propanda. I think you get 1 star on this one but you get high marks for crazed and annoying persistence and perserveration.

Just go to page #11 and see the posts on 7/20 and 7/21 where she took MT's abuse, let it roll off her back and tried to debate with her, watched as MT was close to having a seizure and then told her to chill.

Reading the archives is interesting. LOL. Even see one where MT denies being a conservative and then says she'll never post here again.

Your accusation that because Im liberal/democrat/anti war and so I smoke reefer shows your ignorance..PERIOD..I dont post in broad generalizations and I ask you to show me where I have..PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE POSTED IN BROAD GENERALIZATIONS OR LIES. And, I once again ask you to show me the news reports of where there was a stench in the DC mall because of the anti war people or the anti war people in your town do not bathe and stink..Show me the stories..Waiting for the proof..sure hope you can post it, otherwise guess you are discredited and proven to be a liar (so what else is new, conservative=liar)..Guess you need to find another handle to post under the liberal board, LOL.

Lying and attacking and personal insults. You can't defend the issues because your theory is indefensible.

That's exactly what I said. Scarborough has always supported Bush. There is a difference between supporting and blindly following. For example, you see nothing wrong with how this case was handled. You see nothing wrong with Bush lying every time he opens his mouth. That's blind faith.

Scarborough is an objective Republican who believes in honesty. I realize this is a difficult concept for some CONS to understand. Once upon a time, honesty was considered a good thing in the United States. People who were honest were considered to have moral character and integrity. Scarborough is one of those rare of Republicans, totally foreign to you, I'm sure.

To blindly follow (which I'm sure you're quite familiar with) means worshiping a man as if he's some kind of god, believing every single word he says, even when you see evidence to the contrary right before your eyes. He lies every day; those who follow blindly believe him every day. And when it becomes common knowledge that he's lied and when they can't twist and manipulate the lie out of recognition any more, then his blind followers make excuses for him, usually blaming democrats or anyone else who is handy but never blaming the liar himself. And they justify all the lying because they have that special *connection* with God. They can lie all they want and God just winks at them and says it's okay because their place in heaven has already been guaranteed, unlike the rest of us poor slobs out there without that special connection.

The only thing that scares me more than Bush having the same credibility as Al Qaeda is the fact that there are so many morons who blindly follow him, who just aren't smart enough to figure out that Bush was never on their side - he's only on the side of big money. He even joked about his *base* - the *haves* and the *have nots.*

By the way, you are on the liberal board. If you don't care for the liberal point of view, the CON board is ---->

I was responding to this: *And know a lot PK. I know A LOT about your posting habits more than you could ever imagine.* I was accused of doing something I simply didn't do, so that just shows me how much you people really DO know, and, yes, I can *imagine* a LOT when faced with this kind of ominous post.

Those of your ilk have dark histories of murdering people of different beliefs (for example, personnel at abortion clinics), and the latest tactic of the Neocons is intimidation and retribution. Just ask Valerie Plame, who used to have a career before her husband spoke the truth.

If someone said that to you on your board, you'd be accusing them of threatening to assassinate you and contacting the FBI. Who are you KIDDING? Typical neocon double standard and hypocrisy at work again.